Gaiane Tonoian v. Angelo’s Unisex Hairstyling, 2016 HRTO 1511

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gaiane Tonoian

Applicant

-and-

Angelo’s Unisex Hairstyling, Angelo DiBenedetto and Maryam Bakos

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: November 25, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1511

Indexed as: Tonoian v. Angelo’s Unisex Hairstyling

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of marital status, family status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

BACKGROUND

2On November 9, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application (“the Notice”) to the respondents, Angelo’s Unisex Hairstyling and Angelo DiBenedetto. The respondents filed a Response, naming an additional respondent, Marian Bakos.

3On April 21, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice to Named Respondent to Marian Bakos, directing her to file a Response not later than 35 days from that date. The Tribunal did not receive a Response from Ms. Bakos and so sent a No Response letter, dated August 22, 2016, in which it warned her of the consequences of not filing a Response and directing her to do so by September 6, 2016.

4Ms. Bakos contacted the Tribunal on August 23, 2016. She advised that the correct spelling of her first name was “Maryam”. She also expressed her concern about her ability to file a Response. A voice-mail message was left for her, in which she was told to do her best to respond to the August 22, 2016 letter from the Tribunal. A follow-up letter was sent to the parties, attaching the August 23, 2016 record of contact with the individual respondent. Although this was sent on November 8, 2016, Ms. Bakos did not attempt to further communicate with the Tribunal.

5The August 22, 2106 letter warned the individual respondent about the consequences of not filing a Response and her attention was drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which states:

5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;

b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

6To date, the individual respondent has not complied with these directions and has not filed a Response or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal.

DECISION

7In Kearns v. 1327827 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 457, at paras. 11 to 14, the Tribunal set out its approach in circumstances where a respondent fails to file a Response after having been cautioned by the Tribunal about the consequences of not doing so. As the Tribunal noted, after having been provided clear notice of what is required, a respondent who refuses or chooses not to file a Response should not be able to frustrate the objects of the Code, and the applicant’s rights to assert a claim and seek a timely determination of that claim.

8Where no Response is filed, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the Application in the absence of the respondent. In all but the rarest of cases, the Tribunal will deem the respondent to have waived its right to participate in the proceeding and deem the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application. I am satisfied that the respondent has received the Notice of Application and the further direction requiring the filing of a Response. The respondent, Maryam Bakos, refuses or has chosen not to participate in these proceedings.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:

a. The individual respondent is deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application against her;

b. The individual respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in these proceedings;

c. The individual respondent is not entitled to further notice with respect to the Application.

10I am not seized of this matter.